I wasn't trying to answer your question. I was pointing out that your question presupposes that the majority has the power to enforce its will on the minority. It doesn't even consider the possibility that the majority having that power is not a law of physics, it's a social construct, and a society does not have to adopt it.

> A new city/town/state/country is getting started (let's assume peacefully somehow, this is a thought experiment).

Who gets to set those limits on democratic action?

Again, you're assuming that what gets started is a city/town/state/country as a political entity, with the ability to enforce its will on its residents, and then asking how that power gets regulated.

You're not even considering the possibility of a community getting started without anyone having the power to enforce their will on others, with everyone having to deal with everyone else as an equal, and nobody having any "governmental" powers.

Historically, such things have happened. For example, saga period Iceland went for several centuries without anyone having governmental powers. Some of the American colonies in the late 1600s and early 1700s--Pennsylvania is a good example--had effectively no one having governmental powers, since while there was nominally a "goverment", it had no ability to enforce its will on residents. These are "other choices" that your question doesn't even comprehend.

What happened in those cases? Historically, those societies did fine as long as they were left alone. What eventually ended them was outside interference. Saga period Iceland ended up conquered by Norway. Pennsylvania ended up having its regime tightened up by the British after the French and Indian War (as part of a general tightening up on all the American colonies).